application of a legal standard in South Dakota

2009“Once the facts have been determined, however, the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.” State v. Hirning, 1999 SD 53, ¶ 8 , 592 N.W.2d 600, 603 (citing Spenner v. City of Sioux Falls, 1998 SD 56, ¶ 13 , 580 N.W.2d 606, 610 ).

2009“Once the facts have been determined, however, the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.” State v. Hirning, 1999 SD 53, ¶ 8 , 592 N.W.2d 600, 603 (citing Spenner v. City of Sioux Falls, 1998 SD 56, ¶ 13 , 580 N.W.2d 606, 610 ).

2004Schuck v. John Morrell Co., 529 N.W.2d 894, 896 (S.D.1995) (citations omitted).

2003Weeks v. Valley Bank, 2000 SD 104, ¶ 8 , 615 N.W.2d 179, 182 (citing Schuck v. John Morrell & Co., 529 N.W.2d 894, 896 (S.D.1995)).

2024Thus, “the application of a legal standard to those [undisputed] facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.” State v. Doap Deng Chuol, 2014 S.D. 33 , ¶ 19, 849 N.W.2d 255, 261 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Lamont, 2001 S.D. 92 , ¶ 12, 631 N.W.2d 603, 607 ).

2014Here, the factual findings of the circuit court are not in dispute, and thus, “the application of a legal standard to those [undisputed] facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.” Id. [¶ 20.] We examine photographic lineups and in-court identifications under a two-part analysis: “(1) Was the lineup impermissibly suggestive, and (2) if so, was the subsequent in-court identification tainted?” State v. Abdo, 518 N.W.2d 223, 225 (S.D.1994). “[E]ven though the photographic lineup may be considered to be impermissibly suggestive, the in-court identification is admissible upon the [S]tate’s showin

2009Once the facts have been determined, 4 however, the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.” State v. Ball, 2004 SD 9, ¶ 21 , 675 N.W.2d 192, 199 (quoting State v. Hodges, 2001 SD 93, ¶ 8 , 631 N.W.2d 206, 209 ). *520 A. Whether Wright’s Interview was a Custodial Interrogation Requiring a Miranda Advisement. [¶ 19.] At no time during Wright’s interview did the police advise Wright of her Miranda rights. “[P]olice officers are not [,however,] required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question.” State v. Aesoph, 2002 SD 71, ¶ 17 ,

2009Once the facts have been determined, 4 however, the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.” State v. Ball, 2004 SD 9, ¶ 21 , 675 N.W.2d 192, 199 (quoting State v. Hodges, 2001 SD 93, ¶ 8 , 631 N.W.2d 206, 209 ). *520 A. Whether Wright’s Interview was a Custodial Interrogation Requiring a Miranda Advisement. [¶ 19.] At no time during Wright’s interview did the police advise Wright of her Miranda rights. “[P]olice officers are not [,however,] required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question.” State v. Aesoph, 2002 SD 71, ¶ 17 ,

2008“When the issue involves a question of mixed law and fact requiring the application of a legal standard, the Court will treat the issue as a question of law subject to de novo review.” Id. (citing Permann v. Dep’t of Labor, 411 N.W.2d 113, 119 (S.D.1987)).

2001Permann v. Dep’t of Labor, 411 N.W.2d 113, 119 (S.D.1987).

2025However, it is a general principle that “[f]actual findings of the lower court are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, but once those facts have been determined, ‘the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.’” State v. Heney, 2013 S.D. 77 , ¶ 8, 839 N.W.2d 558 , 561–62 (quoting State v. Hess, 2004 S.D. 60 , ¶ 9, 680 N.W.2d 314, 319 ).

2022“The court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, but we give no deference to the court’s conclusions of law.” State v. Fischer, 2016 S.D. 12 , ¶ 10, 875 N.W.2d 40, 44 (quoting State v. Fierro, 2014 S.D. 62, ¶ 12 , 853 N.W.2d 235, 239 ). “[O]nce those facts have been determined, ‘the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.’” State v. Heney, 2013 S.D. 77 , ¶ 8, 839 N.W.2d 558 , 561–62 (quoting State v. Hess, 2004 S.D. 60 , ¶ 9, 680 N.W.2d 314, 319 ).

2023“The findings will not be disturbed unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.” Weeks v. Valley Bank, 2000 S.D. 104 , ¶ 8, 615 N.W.2d 179, 182 (citing Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc., 1998 S.D. 8 , ¶ 7, 575 N.W.2d 225, 229 ). [¶17.] “Conclusions of law and mixed questions of fact and law that require the application of a legal standard are fully reviewable.” Jorenby v. S.D.

2003“Conclusions of law, as well as mixed questions of fact and law that require the application of a legal standard, are fully reviewable,” Cohen v. City of Pierre, 2002 SD 110, ¶ 10 , 651 N.W.2d 265, 267 (quoting Weeks v. Valley Bank, 2000 SD 104, ¶ 8 , 615 N.W.2d 179, 182 ). [¶ 10.] Construction of statutes, Bergee v. South Dakota Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 2000 SD 35, ¶ 4 , 608 N.W.2d 636, 638 (citing State v. Shadbolt, 1999 SD 15, ¶ 10 , 590 N.W.2d 231, 233 ), and rules, Island v. Department of Corrections, 1996 SD 28, ¶ 8 , 545 N.W.2d 201, 203 ; Nelson v. South Dakota Bd. of Dentistry, 464

2024“Once the facts have been determined, however, the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.” State v. Myhre, 2001 S.D. 109 , ¶ 9, 633 N.W.2d 186, 188 (citing Spenner v. City of Sioux Falls, 1998 S.D. 56 , ¶ 13, 580 N.W.2d 606, 610 ). -6- #30046 Analysis and Decision 1.

2002Once the facts have been determined, however, the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.” State v. Myhre, 2001 SD 109, ¶ 9 , 633 N.W.2d 186, 188 (internal citations omitted).

2024See State v. Boll, 2002 S.D. 114 , ¶ 14, 651 N.W.2d 710, 715 (providing that although we review the circuit court’s findings of fact for clear error, “[o]nce the facts have been determined, [ ]the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo”). [¶27.] This Court has explained that the inevitable discovery doctrine “applies where evidence may have been seized illegally but where an alternative legal means of discovery . . . would inevitably have led to the same result.” Smith, -15- #30023 2014 S.D. 50 , ¶ 25, 851 N.W.2d at 726 (omission in original).

2013Analysis and Decision [¶ 9.] “[T]he exclusionary rule prohibits introduction into evidence of tangible materials seized during an unlawful search, and of testimony concerning knowledge acquired during an unlawful search.” State v. Boll, 2002 S.D. 114 , ¶ 19, 651 N.W.2d 710, 716 (quoting Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536 , 108 S.Ct. 2529, 2533 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988)). “[T]he exclusionary rule reaches not only primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure, but also evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or ‘fruit of the poi

2000Abild v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 1996 SD 50, ¶ 6 , 547 N.W.2d 556, 558-59 (citations omitted). [¶ 10.] Neither of Lutheran Health’s arguments are predicated on an entirely accurate assessment of the nature of Reetz’s separation from her employment.

2000Abild v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 1996 SD 50, ¶ 6 , 547 N.W.2d 556, 558-59 (citations omitted). [¶ 10.] Neither of Lutheran Health’s arguments are predicated on an entirely accurate assessment of the nature of Reetz’s separation from her employment.

2000“Likewise, mixed questions of fact and law which require the application of a legal standard are fully reviewable.” Egemo, 470 N.W.2d at 820 (other citations omitted).

1995Egemo v. Flores, 470 N.W.2d 817, 820 (S.D.1991); Permann, 411 N.W.2d at 119 .

1998Spenner v. City of Sioux Falls, 1998 SD 56 , ¶13, 580 NW2d 606, 610 ; see State v. Dreps, 1996 SD 142 , ¶8, 558 NW2d 339, 341 .

1998Spenner v. City of Sioux Falls, 1998 SD 56 , ¶13, 580 NW2d 606, 610 ; see State v. Dreps, 1996 SD 142 , ¶8, 558 NW2d 339, 341 .

1991In re Groseth Int’l, 442 N.W.2d 229, 232 (S.D.1989) (Sabers, J., concurring in part and concurring specially in part).

1991In re Groseth Int’l, 442 N.W.2d 229, 232 (S.D.1989) (Sabers, J., concurring in part and concurring specially in part); South Dakota Stockgrowers Ass’n v. Holloway, 438 N.W.2d 561, 563 (S.D.1989); Permann, 411 N.W.2d at 119 .

2025However, it is a general principle that “[f]actual findings of the lower court are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, but once those facts have been determined, ‘the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.’” State v. Heney, 2013 S.D. 77 , ¶ 8, 839 N.W.2d 558 , 561–62 (quoting State v. Hess, 2004 S.D. 60 , ¶ 9, 680 N.W.2d 314, 319 ).

2022“The court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, but we give no deference to the court’s conclusions of law.” State v. Fischer, 2016 S.D. 12 , ¶ 10, 875 N.W.2d 40, 44 (quoting State v. Fierro, 2014 S.D. 62, ¶ 12 , 853 N.W.2d 235, 239 ). “[O]nce those facts have been determined, ‘the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.’” State v. Heney, 2013 S.D. 77 , ¶ 8, 839 N.W.2d 558 , 561–62 (quoting State v. Hess, 2004 S.D. 60 , ¶ 9, 680 N.W.2d 314, 319 ).

2007“Once the facts have been determined, however, the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.” Id.

2007State v. Sweedland, 2006 SD 77, ¶ 12 , 721 N.W.2d 409, 412 (citing State v. Chavez, 2003 SD 93, ¶ 13 , 668 N.W.2d 89, 95 ) (additional citations omitted). [¶ 13.] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 3 This prohibition generally means a wa

2022“The court’s findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, but we give no deference to the court’s conclusions of law.” State v. Fischer, 2016 S.D. 12 , ¶ 10, 875 N.W.2d 40, 44 (quoting State v. Fierro, 2014 S.D. 62, ¶ 12 , 853 N.W.2d 235, 239 ). “[O]nce those facts have been determined, ‘the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.’” State v. Heney, 2013 S.D. 77 , ¶ 8, 839 N.W.2d 558 , 561–62 (quoting State v. Hess, 2004 S.D. 60 , ¶ 9, 680 N.W.2d 314, 319 ).

2020Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, apart from a few, well-delineated exceptions.” Fischer, 2016 S.D. 12 , ¶ 13, 875 N.W.2d at 45 .

2021See also State v. Rademaker, 2012 S.D. 28, ¶ 7 , 813 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Under our Fourth Amendment review, “[o]nce the facts have been determined . . . the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law[.]”). [¶48.] If the court concludes the Sheriff did not have an objectively reasonable belief that Gary was present in the mobile home at the time of entry, then the arrest warrant did not give law enforcement the authority to enter the home to search for him.

2021See also State v. Rademaker, 2012 S.D. 28, ¶ 7 , 813 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Under our Fourth Amendment review, “[o]nce the facts have been determined . . . the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law[.]”). [¶48.] If the court concludes the Sheriff did not have an objectively reasonable belief that Gary was present in the mobile home at the time of entry, then the arrest warrant did not give law enforcement the authority to enter the home to search for him.

2015“Once the facts have been determined, however, the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.” Id. (footnote omitted) (quoting Ball, 2004 S.D. 9 , ¶ 21, 675 N.W.2d at 199 ) (internal quotation mark omitted).

2015“Once the facts have been determined, however, the application of a legal standard to those facts is a question of law reviewed de novo.” Id. (footnote omitted) (quoting Ball, 2004 S.D. 9 , ¶ 21, 675 N.W.2d at 199 ) (internal quotation mark omitted).

2013“Yet 'the application of a legal standard to those facts’ is reviewed de novo.” State v. Stevens, 2007 S.D. 54 , ¶ 5, 734 N.W.2d 344, 346 (quoting Hess, 2004 S.D. 60 , ¶ 9, 680 N.W.2d at 319 (citing State v. Lamont, 2001 S.D. 92 , ¶ 12, 631 N.W.2d 603, 607 (citation omitted))). 3 .

2009Hess, 2004 SD 60, ¶ 9 , 680 N.W.2d at 319 (citing State v. Lamont, 2001 SD 92, ¶ 12 , 631 N.W.2d 603, 607 (citation omitted)). 2007 SD 54, ¶ 5 , 734 N.W.2d 344, 346 .

2009State v. De La Rosa, 2003 SD 18 , ¶ 5, 657 N.W.2d 683 , 685. [¶ 23.] 2.

2009State v. De La Rosa, 2003 SD 18 , ¶ 5, 657 N.W.2d 683 , 685. [¶ 23.] 2.